tree of be-ing
March 21st, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Root of ‘Being’ and the be-ing of root :: Root of ‘Being’ and the be-ing of root :: tree of be-ing :: Root of ‘Being’ and the be-ing of root
michaelP wrote:
> Joe posits:
>
>>a taxonomy is a tree structure; and, in a taxonomy of all that is
>
> Joe, it seems to me (and I’ve entered this room before on sets/classes of
> “everything”) that there can not be “a taxonomy of all that is” because it
> would have to contain its self, ad infinitum (because a taxonomy is a being
> too); of course, if thought purely mathematically, one could construct an
> infinite or transfinite self-containing ‘object’, some sort of ‘fractal’ or
> whatever, for this tree of everything… but if you’re talking of the
> ‘actual’ things in being, the everything (and every thing), then I find it
> difficult to imagine this tree of all: it seems (apart from any failure of
> imagination on my part, quite possible) that such would have to be something
> like a mathematical (fictive) object or a mystical fanatasy. Mayhap
> everything, the all, can not be structured like a tree (or organised as a
> tree-structure)?
perhaps you have found a contradiction; but, what happens if you remove
from the taxonomy of all that is just enough to remove that
contradiction. then you would have a MIT [Maximally Inclusive Taxonomy]
…. and some items left over. how could you stop someone from deciding
that this creates a new taxonomy consisting of two categories: items
included in the MIT and items excluded from the MIT.
a paradox might be defined as a pair of opposite contradictions; so, we
have a paradox; but, it is not like there are no analogous paradoxes in
Heideggerian speculation about be-ing in relation to Being/being.
also, as to ‘actual’, you might want to explain whether you are using
‘actual’ the way Heidegger does or in another way.
from Basic Concepts, section 2:
“Thus we never think “beings’ as a whole as long as we only mean the
actual. Henceforth, if we earnestly think beings as a whole, if we think
their being completely, then the actuality of the actual is contained in
being, but also the possibility of the possible and the necessity of the
necessary.”
“It remains to be asked why precisely these three (possibility,
actuality, necessity) belong to being, whether they alone exhaust its
essence. For metaphysics (ontology) it is clearly decided, beforehand
and without any consideration, that these three types of beings, also
simply called “the” “modalities” (actuality, possibility, necessity),
exhaust the essence of being. That a being is either actual, possible,
or necessary strikes ordinary understanding as a truism. However, this
is perhaps a misunderstanding of the other truism that beings are actual
and the actual is the effective and what counts at any particular time.”
each of these truisms constructs a taxonomy. the first is an actual
taxonomy of the types of being. the second is an actual taxonomy of the
actual. Heidegger’s actual taxonomy consist of three items: being,
beings and the Nothing.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
